A progressive outlook on politics in Australia and abroad

Posts Tagged ‘Malcolm Turnbull’

Malcolm says it’s time for the speculation about Peter Costello’s future to stop because the public want to hear about something else. Shouldn’t he be saying that to someone other than the public? I don’t believe we’re responsible for the stupidity of the political/media discourse.

My main problem with Malcolm Turnbull’s approach to leading the Opposition is not really that he sends mixed messages, nor that he opposes whatever the Government does just for the sake of opposing, nor even that he focuses on the trivial.

No, my problem is that when you look carefully at any statement Turnbull makes – when you listen to him, then read the transcript, then read the reporting – you realise that he is completely incoherent:

“The key to managing difficult times is discipline and the willingness, the guts, to take tough decisions,” he said.

I have seen what Kevin Rudd said today about the possibility of running a deficit on infrastructure spending. I understand his reasoning in saying that, and although I tend to agree with it I can understand that some might argue differently or be concerned about it.

But Turnbull doesn’t argue against it. He doesn’t raise concerns about it. The closest he comes to a point is to imply Rudd is a wimp. But even that doesn’t come through clearly.

Andrew Bolt is gunning for Krudd (if I may use the vernacular). He has been running a series of blog posts calling on the media to investigate “Rudd’s betrayal of Bush“. I have had several thoughts in reaction to this:

What a shame that Bolt apparently doesn’t have the skill or motivation to perform his own investigative work and has to rely on getting real journalists to take his ideas seriously.

Bolt flatly asserts that Rudd leaked the information. Isn’t this a terribly flawed assumption? The Bush administration has denied that Bush said what the Australian alleged. Rudd has denied that Bush said it and rubbished the notion that Bush isn’t well aware of the G20. What’s more, when asked whether the “leak” came from his office, has given an answer that approximates, “buggered if I know.” Yet Bolt still seems to be acting as though the “leak” gave information that would only be known to someone involved in, present during, or who had accurate information about, the Bush-Rudd conversation. If the information was false, then anyone could have made it up, so long as they knew the conversation took place and the general topic.

The phone conversation happened while there was a dinner party going on at Kirribilli house. Present at that party was one Chris Mitchell, editor of the newspaper formerly known as the Government Gazzette, currently known as the Opposition Organ, which has been using its editorial content to attack the Rudd Government’s policies and conduct. Now, this paper has published the “leaked” information. If the fact that it made Rudd look like a bigshot is enough reason for Bolt to conclude that Rudd himself was the “leak”, isn’t the fact that this made Rudd look like a blabbermouth enough of a reason to suspect Chris Mitchell?

If we take the idea of investigation seriously then, based on the information we currently have, someone fed the Australian false information about the Bush-Rudd conversation. Does the journalistic obligation to preserve confidential sources apply to a source who tells lies? Shouldn’t the investigation begin with the Australian revealing who gave them dud information?

Malcolm has been getting in on the act as well, and making some of the same errors of reasoning as Bolt. He says that the leaking of the conversation is embarrassing and a national security risk – which it might be, if the leak was accurate. Otherwise, it’s just bullshit spread by someone and believed by a newspaper who didn’t check the credibility of their sources well enough. But Malcolm adds in a call for the Australian Federal Police to head an investigation. Now I’ve never been shy about discussing the limitations of the AFP, but I would still contend that they are, in fact, a law enforcement body. So if Malcolm wants them to investigate something, should it perhaps be an allegation of some illegal activity? Just saying.

I think there was a decent amount of opportunism in Rudd’s criticism of Malcolm – it tries to create equivalence with Robert McClelland’s recent comments. I tend to agree with Tim Dunlop – McClelland’s comments were downright stupid but I am not convinced that he should lose his job over it. What gets to me the most about it is that I had hoped we might be past the time of “tough on terror” being the principal value that Attorneys-General must endorse and be judged upon. They had just been convicted – why did the Government need to say anything more to highlight that terrorists will be sought out and prosecuted?

Back on the economic issues, Keri has a good post about the current crisis in the US and why Australia is not likely to see the same sort of problem.